Hello,
On 29/04/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, American English, British English, Australian English etc all of them are able to work together. Having different orthographies is perfectly acceptable. The same applies to Spanish and Portuguese. Wikipedia does not exist to develop a particular orthography. That is in and of itself a reason to dismiss a request for a new Wikipedia.
I wonder what your definition of a dialect is. What you are writing is not even a dialect.
I'm sorry for interfearing now, but this is the point we should to start months ago. Several different English'es have different orthography, lexic, and so on nearly in the way different Belarusian's have, and English'es coexist in the one project. But Gerard, could you please explain why today any usage of another orthography is totally forbidden by the be.wikipedia.org administrators? This is even mentioned at the top on the main page, and also stated that this desicion was made by Wikimedia Foundation, but, as I understand, both you and Berto still wonder what's the real situation with the Belarusian orthographies, and still don't have a clear picture. But then what is the Wikimedia solutuion mentioned at be.wikipedia.org, and why the official orthography is the only allowed in this Wikipedia?
Regards, Jaska Zedlik
Hoi!
as I understand, both you and Berto
Since you can read other people's minds you shouldn't need to make questions. Simply concentrate and read my thoughts, will you? :)
why the official orthography is the only allowed in this Wikipedia?
We stated that whenever a normative version of ANY language is available, that version is to be preferred in the user interface.
The situation is different when you have a number of "official" flavors of one single language (en_us, en_uk, etc). There are policies in en.wiki (just to name one outstanding case) that can be used as a model for this kind of situations.
As per content orthography, all editions are free to set their own policies, so far. We ALL pushed since the very start to have the two communities merge into one, (read the old messages if in doubt), yet we cannot force anyone into anything.
So far the two communities prefer having two separate editions. Why? Read THEIR minds to get an answer :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hello Berto,
BdS> Since you can read other people's minds you shouldn't need to make BdS> questions. Simply concentrate and read my thoughts, will you? :)
Sorry, I haven't still studied it :-)
why the official orthography is the only allowed in this Wikipedia?
BdS> We stated that whenever a normative version of ANY language is available, BdS> that version is to be preferred in the user interface.
Well, let leave user interface, but is it possible to use another orthography in the articles? Now it is forbidden and they refer to some hazy Wikimedia disicion, as Foundation would forbid it.
If, for example, de.wiki admins would forbid the usage of de-1901 in de.wiki as a non-official variant, will it be ok?
Why in the free encyclopedia one must not write in the language variant, let it be non-official now, which is in use, in which books and newspapers were and are printed now? Who gave to the current admins of be.wiki such rights to forbid any use of non-official orthography?
BdS> As per content orthography, all editions are free to set their own policies, BdS> so far. We ALL pushed since the very start to have the two communities merge BdS> into one, (read the old messages if in doubt), yet we cannot force anyone BdS> into anything.
BdS> So far the two communities prefer having two separate editions. Why? Read BdS> THEIR minds to get an answer :)
The main problem is the smaller project be.wiki doesn't want to unite with the bigger be-x-old.wiki. But, probably you remember, first they were allowed to separate in a different project long ago. But the community which use Taraskievica orthography was strongly against it, and now the people from be-x-old.wiki would like to unite again into one project, but only the supporters of the official orthography are against it.
Regards, Jaska Zedlik
Just to clarify things a bit right now.
==Linguistics==
In Belarusian informal usage, word "pravapis" (literally, "orthography") is often denoting "grammar".
* So, when the "it's only orthography" grammar is trotted out for the "ignorant foreigners", one should keep in mind that there are really plenty of differences in other branches of grammar and in lexicon, too.
The introduction of these differences was motivated primarily by ideology, which is not at all hidden in Belarusian-language publications, and leaks into the English-language publications, internet included. You could see plenty of political labels words like "Russification", "Stalinist", "Narkamauka" and "historical justice".
The net effect is we have two variants/branches of Belarusian language.
* Notice how I'm not saying *anything* about the ideological soundness or scientific veritability of the alternative branch. All I'm saying now is these two branches diverge, linguistically, while at the same time bearing the name "Belarusian".
** Also notice that comparisons with British/American or German are very lame in this context. In those, ideology doesn't enter the picture, while here it's the basis, and the drastic divergence is intentionally introduced here.
==Normative==
Now, it's completely no wonder that quite a part of the Belarusian language community is completely dis-interested in the mission of promoting "the only true and classical" variant of Belarusian language.
People just want to create a Wikipedia content in their native language.
Incidentally, as their native language is Belarusian, there is around a state-sponsored, widely-known, school-taught, state-status, iso-coded, standard Belarusian language. Incidentally, it is quite adequate for the stated purpose.
So, there is this alternative branch of language, and it has numerous supporters in Internet. So what?
Why should Belarusian speakers be *forced* to "maintain the unity" with something, in which they are completely *dis-interested*, and which is completely *un-needed* for the task stated?
Now there is this be-x-old which is now submitting for the renaming to be-tarask. One linguistic entity -- one WP. Quite fair.
=="Unity"==
What kind of "unity" is envisioned by the be-x-old crew, was clearly demonstrated by the 2004-2006 experiences in the old [[be:]], which were at least once exposed in this list, in the May-June 2006.
The alternative Belarusian speakers which comprise the majority of old [[be:]] crew simply *hate* the normative variant of Belarusian, and that's the start and the end of it.
Of course, they could not explicitly forbid the "Stalinist Narkamauka", not without hurting themselves, but there are plenty of ways for the adminning group to discourage the creation of undesired content.
All attempts to reach some more balanced solution failed, and no wonder. Looking back, and accounting for the ideology backing the alternative, those attempts were doomed from the very beginning.
---
Hoi!
Why should Belarusian speakers be *forced* to "maintain the unity" with something, in which they are completely *dis-interested
They cannot be forced and will not be forced. If and when be-x-old gets switched off nobody from wmf will migrate a single line of the existing be-x-old content. It will either be you guys doing it or nobody.
Now there is this be-x-old which is now submitting for the renaming to be-tarask. One linguistic entity -- one WP. Quite fair.
Theoretically yes, in practice no, because be-x-old is NOT a recognized linguistic entity. We just refused Romanesco based on this very reason, you want us to start a civil war in Italy to make sure you guys are happy in Minsk? Come on...
The alternative Belarusian speakers which comprise the majority of old [[be:]] crew simply *hate* the normative variant of Belarusian, and that's the start and the end of it.
I'm kind of ready to believe that a number of personal feelings are involved in this matter, yes :) Anyway, none of them is an ISO code.
there are plenty of ways for the adminning group to discourage the creation of undesired content.
Yes, admins always have power, no matter the edition. And it's not even easy to get rid of us bastards, because we have a better knowledge of the environment and can always confuse a newbie by saying/publishing apparently neutral stuff. Thank God this is not under my competence :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
The alternative Belarusian speakers which comprise the majority of old [[be:]] crew simply *hate* the normative variant of Belarusian, and that's the start and the end of it.
If there was a peaceful relationship between speakers of the two variants of Belarusian, they would long ago have recognized each other and made sure both had language codes, just like it works for Norwegian. As you state, this is not the case. Instead, this is a case where "good fences make good neighbors". If each language community could have their own playground with a strong fence between, they could each play there without disturbing the other. However, for better or worse, such fences cannot really exist inside the Wikimedia Foundation. The WMF community of projects and languages is not divided into groups who hate each other. Content and people are flowing free between the projects and languages. This "WMF unity" is what every subgroup must be a part of. If they can't, they must go somewhere else.
I'm not speaking for the Foundation. On the contrary, I once left Wikipedia to start an alternative website because I didn't agree with how things were being done in Wikipedia at the time (in 2001). I'm speaking from experience, when I recommend the "be-tarask" community to *consider* the option of leaving Wikipedia and setting up shop on their own server or on a hosting provider such as Wikia. Note however: I'm not recommending you to leave, I'm recommending you to *consider* this option. What would it mean for you? It could mean more freedom, being able to do things your way, not being subject to the policies of the Foundation. It would certainly mean isolation, as you would no longer be part of Wikipedia, the internationally renown free encyclopedia. Would the freedom be worth this? It's your choice.
And ultimately: Would the chance to stay within Wikipedia be worth the sacrifice to cooperate with the community of speakers of official Belarusian? Instead of hating their spelling?
Hoi!
The WMF community of projects and languages is not divided into groups who hate each other. Content and people are flowing free between the projects and languages. This "WMF unity" is what every subgroup must be a part of. If they can't, they must go somewhere else.
+1. :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Alexander Cajcyc wrote:
AC> Recently the Belarusian "Classical" [as it is called by its users] AC> orthography got its ISO-code, that is be-tarask:
Not pure ISO-code, but if the subtag for the language variant was registered, is it really so very difficult just to rename several files to the final variant? This is also wanted by the users of this orthography. You yourself can see the variant "be-x-old" don't look nice, and another exists and this is the opinion of the users who want to work in this Wikipedia. Please, just do this simple thing and these people became happier.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
LA> I'm speaking from experience, when I recommend the LA> "be-tarask" community to *consider* the option of leaving LA> Wikipedia and setting up shop on their own server or on a hosting LA> provider such as Wikia. Note however: I'm not recommending you to LA> leave, I'm recommending you to *consider* this option. What would LA> it mean for you? It could mean more freedom, being able to do LA> things your way, not being subject to the policies of the LA> Foundation. It would certainly mean isolation, as you would no LA> longer be part of Wikipedia, the internationally renown free LA> encyclopedia. Would the freedom be worth this? It's your choice.
The problem is why all these people should leave? Sure, the old Belarusian Wikipedia can easily be shut down, but I hope the people who assume now to do it will understand that this is the years of work of hundered people. And till now they cannot even have a thougth that their articles in some day will become "not acceptable". I can't see now the ability to set up a new server like Wikipedia in Belarus. And after this to start again from the very beginning.
LA> And ultimately: Would the chance to stay within Wikipedia be worth LA> the sacrifice to cooperate with the community of speakers of LA> official Belarusian? Instead of hating their spelling?
Why do you think the users of the classical orthography hate the users and the oficial orthography? After Yury's claims? But this is not really so. If you want a real example, about 9 months ago, when the separation began, the users of the old Belarusian Wikipedia was against any separation and wanted to cooperate. Personally I use the classical orthography, but I don't hate the official orthography at all. It's existing doesn't offend me. And the majority of the Betarusian classical orthography users have nearly the same opinion. But the people who use the official orthography really *hate* the classical one, and it offends them even by it's existing.
The situation changed a little after the old Belarusian Wikipedia was moved to be-x-old. But this doesn't mean that all the users of the classical orthography began to hate the official orthography. Of course, not. The began to hate personally Mr. Tarasievich and other four people who favoured the official orthography, wanted to separate then, and now placed in jeopardy the word of hundered people during 3 years.
Sorry for inconvenience.
Jaska Zedlik
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote: ...
Why do you think the users of the classical orthography hate the users and the oficial orthography? After Yury's claims? But this is not really so. If you want a real example, about 9 months ago, when the separation began, the users of the old Belarusian Wikipedia was against any separation and wanted to cooperate. Personally I use the
...
Sorry, all you folks, who have to read this endlessly, but this is just untrue.
How dare you?
Yes, Jaska, for you and your pals the actual Belarusian language is "Stalinist abomination", you wouldn't touch it with a long stick, and you proclaim that it "must die" and you promote using roll-your-own return-to-the-roots version of the language instead.
So? Thats's nuts, in my opinion, but it's your right. Just don't paint us black and act hurt innocence here.
Even the archives of be-x-old (e.g., 2004 and 2005 talks of main_page and Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс) or your own comment to the bug 9823 prove that kind of claims untrue.
BTW, I fully support retaining the be-x-old (eventually, be-tarask) WP.
---
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
YT> Sorry, all you folks, who have to read this endlessly, but this is just untrue.
YT> How dare you?
YT> Yes, Jaska, for you and your pals the actual Belarusian language is YT> "Stalinist abomination", you wouldn't touch it with a long stick, and YT> you proclaim that it "must die" and you promote using roll-your-own YT> return-to-the-roots version of the language instead.
YT> Even the archives of be-x-old (e.g., 2004 and 2005 talks of main_page YT> and Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс) or your own comment to the bug 9823 prove that YT> kind of claims untrue.
Untrue? I just expressed my opinion, how can it be untrue? Besides, I NEVER said the official Belarusian orthography is "Stalinist abomination", and I NEVER said it "must die". Because I even don't think so. And I have NOT added any comments to bug 9823 (Jan Dashkevich -- it wasn't me).
Dear Wikimedia Foundation! Can't you see, the half (if not more) of Yury's claims is mendacious? And the same was earlier. Please, collect yourselves, until it is not too late.
Jaska Zedlik
Peace you guys... let's try to work together instead of fighting one another. Yes, history has unpleasant aspects, and aspects of the past cause us to mistrust each other in the present. But we must learn to forget... and move ahead. Thanks! Frederick Noronha, in Goa, India.
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote:
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
YT> Sorry, all you folks, who have to read this endlessly, but this is just untrue.
YT> How dare you?
YT> Yes, Jaska, for you and your pals the actual Belarusian language is YT> "Stalinist abomination", you wouldn't touch it with a long stick, and YT> you proclaim that it "must die" and you promote using roll-your-own YT> return-to-the-roots version of the language instead.
YT> Even the archives of be-x-old (e.g., 2004 and 2005 talks of main_page YT> and Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс) or your own comment to the bug 9823 prove that YT> kind of claims untrue.
Untrue? I just expressed my opinion, how can it be untrue? Besides, I NEVER said the official Belarusian orthography is "Stalinist abomination", and I NEVER said it "must die". Because I even don't think so. And I have NOT added any comments to bug 9823 (Jan Dashkevich -- it wasn't me).
Dear Wikimedia Foundation! Can't you see, the half (if not more) of Yury's claims is mendacious? And the same was earlier. Please, collect yourselves, until it is not too late.
Jaska Zedlik
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote: ...
*You and your pals* express yourselves, which *make untrue* your claims ("opinions") on the nature of communities, including your own frequent nods to my person.
It's not so hard to understand, really.
---
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
YT> *You and your pals* express yourselves, which *make untrue* your YT> claims ("opinions") on the nature of communities, including your own YT> frequent nods to my person.
Sorry, but it wasn't a point of my previous letter. If you totally hate me and all other users of the classical orthography, there is no cause to claim a lie about anything and anybody, as you did in your letters.
Well, let's stop this discussion. Now as far as I can see the disicion about the old Belarusian Wikipedia is only on WF, and it's a pity the users of this old Belarusian Wikipedia have no possibility to do anything to defend their work, and their opinion is not interesting to anybody.
Sorry for annoing you with my letters.
Jaska Zedlik
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote: ...
Sorry, but it wasn't a point of my previous letter. If you totally hate me and all other users of the classical orthography, there is no
...
Don't cry wolves. I just see *no use* for alternative Belarusian orthographies whatsoever, such as they exist.
By the way, if you did not catch that difference, "untrue" (missing with the truth -- as the other side sees it) doesn't equal "lie" (intentionally telling untruth).
Meanwhile, you are very liberal with "lies" and "mendaciousness". Is it too much to expect apologies from you?
---
On 11/05/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote:
I suppose it's too late to ask both projects be deleted and the Belarusian language(s) be deleted entirely from Wikimedia? Oh well.
- d.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:50 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 11/05/07, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, Jaska Zedlik sub@zedlik.com wrote:
I suppose it's too late to ask both projects be deleted and the Belarusian language(s) be deleted entirely from Wikimedia? Oh well.
Haha, if you both can't play nicely you're both going to your rooms. :D
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi!
I suppose it's too late to ask both projects be deleted and the Belarusian language(s) be deleted entirely from Wikimedia? Oh well.
No it's not. And given the current state of affairs you can count on my vote to back you :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
*You and your pals* express yourselves, which *make untrue* your
Hey kids, go out and fight outdoors. Every time you use this mailing list to indicate that you are enemies, you worsen your chances of having your community accepted in the WMF family.
Again, I'm not speaking for the foundation. I'm just stating the obvious. You're supposed to be friends. If you can't, at least try to fake it.
Hoi!
And the majority of the Belarusian classical orthography users have nearly the same opinion.
Then they should simply overwhelm those "noisy few" who don't (from both sides). There are things like "de-amin" and "ban" to deal with individuals who become dangerous for the whole community. I sympathize with the amount of work both sides made, but if you aren't able to clean your houses from trolls you'll end up in being perceived as trolls collectively.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hoi!
If, for example, de.wiki admins would forbid the usage of de-1901 in de.wiki as a non-official variant, will it be ok?
Yes, if the community is okay with it. Maybe I could be personally against the decision, but I don't vote in de.wiki (and I would not want to, I spend more than enough time in wmf "as is").
Why in the free encyclopedia one must not write in the language variant, let it be non-official now, which is in use, in which books and newspapers were and are printed now?
The variant in object is NOT official in any state. As a linguistic entity it is not alternative to official Byelorussian (no ISO code). No matter how many books and papers you print for us it simply does not exist. We do not have ANY rule "for Byelorussian" (or for any other single language). We treat Byelorussian just like anybody else.
I'm positive that whatever rule we will choose there will always be cases in which the blanket is short. Yet by having a single public rule (instead of making "ad hoc" votes) we at least avoid single arbitrary decisions. There will be no change for this rule because changing it would require making a "Byelorussian exception".
The wmf cannot be a place in which exceptions are made, because once you have exceptions you have special people who get special services (or less services than normal people do) based on the fact that they have personal positive or negative relations in the wmf. We want to maintain a situation in which all linguistic entities are equal and decisions are made based on factors that judges cannot control.
The day in which a single exception will be accepted (no matter which one) I will immediately resign from LangCom. All my work is spent to avoid having people kissing the asses of bureaucrats and admin communities by needing to request individual permissions based on "ad hoc" decisions; I'll better take my buttocks out of the Committee before becoming a feudal power myself.
To get rid of feudal powers we need clear public policies that anyone can read and apply long before asking anyone. The process is far from being over, yet we are working on it and hopefully the amount of arbitrary moves required to allow a project will progressively collapse to zero. Not without cases like yours, but that's life, sorry. There is no such rule like a rule that has "everybody happy".
The main problem is the smaller project be.wiki doesn't want to unite with the bigger be-x-old.wiki.
Smaller or bigger doesn't mean a thing to us. Be also aware that AFAIK there is still an open proceeding that at least theoretically might end up in closing be-x-old definitely. IMHO you should get at least ready to migrate be-x-old content into a united version, in case that happens. No content and none of the existing privileges (admins and bureaucrats) would be migrated by the wmf, if and when such a decision is made.
Public quarrels won't help, you'll simply end up in making the situation between the two communities worse. No matter your orthography/accent diplomacy works much better if you have real humans meet in front of a real beer (or whatever else), instead of periodically exchanging accuses here.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hoi
Recently the Belarusian "Classical" [as it is called by its users] orthography got its ISO-code, that is be-tarask:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem with that :)
Berto d'Sera wrote:
If, for example, de.wiki admins would forbid the usage of de-1901 in de.wiki as a non-official variant, will it be ok?
Yes, if the community is okay with it. Maybe I could be personally against the decision, but I don't vote in de.wiki (and I would not want to, I spend more than enough time in wmf "as is").
Actually, the be-tarask community seems to be much larger than the group of adherents of the normative orthography. Unfortunately, that was one of the reasons for a slow progress of the introduction of the official-orthography interface in old [[be]]. But for some reason that did not save the Belarusian Wikipedia from deletion...
PS it's Belarusian, not Byelyorussian
czalex
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Berto 'd Sera Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:51 PM To: 'Jaska Zedlik'; wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] be: and be-x-old: interwiki
Hoi!
If, for example, de.wiki admins would forbid the usage of de-1901 in de.wiki as a non-official variant, will it be ok?
Yes, if the community is okay with it. Maybe I could be personally against the decision, but I don't vote in de.wiki (and I would not want to, I spend more than enough time in wmf "as is").
Why in the free encyclopedia one must not write in the language variant, let it be non-official now, which is in use, in which books and newspapers were and are printed now?
The variant in object is NOT official in any state. As a linguistic entity it is not alternative to official Byelorussian (no ISO code). No matter how many books and papers you print for us it simply does not exist. We do not have ANY rule "for Byelorussian" (or for any other single language). We treat Byelorussian just like anybody else.
I'm positive that whatever rule we will choose there will always be cases in which the blanket is short. Yet by having a single public rule (instead of making "ad hoc" votes) we at least avoid single arbitrary decisions. There will be no change for this rule because changing it would require making a "Byelorussian exception".
The wmf cannot be a place in which exceptions are made, because once you have exceptions you have special people who get special services (or less services than normal people do) based on the fact that they have personal positive or negative relations in the wmf. We want to maintain a situation in which all linguistic entities are equal and decisions are made based on factors that judges cannot control.
The day in which a single exception will be accepted (no matter which one) I will immediately resign from LangCom. All my work is spent to avoid having people kissing the asses of bureaucrats and admin communities by needing to request individual permissions based on "ad hoc" decisions; I'll better take my buttocks out of the Committee before becoming a feudal power myself.
To get rid of feudal powers we need clear public policies that anyone can read and apply long before asking anyone. The process is far from being over, yet we are working on it and hopefully the amount of arbitrary moves required to allow a project will progressively collapse to zero. Not without cases like yours, but that's life, sorry. There is no such rule like a rule that has "everybody happy".
The main problem is the smaller project be.wiki doesn't want to unite with the bigger be-x-old.wiki.
Smaller or bigger doesn't mean a thing to us. Be also aware that AFAIK there is still an open proceeding that at least theoretically might end up in closing be-x-old definitely. IMHO you should get at least ready to migrate be-x-old content into a united version, in case that happens. No content and none of the existing privileges (admins and bureaucrats) would be migrated by the wmf, if and when such a decision is made.
Public quarrels won't help, you'll simply end up in making the situation between the two communities worse. No matter your orthography/accent diplomacy works much better if you have real humans meet in front of a real beer (or whatever else), instead of periodically exchanging accuses here.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Alexander Cajcyc wrote:
Hoi
Recently the Belarusian "Classical" [as it is called by its users] orthography got its ISO-code, that is be-tarask:
I would make the minor technical point that this is not a code assigned by ISO, it is an RFC 4646 language subtag, assigned by IANA.
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem with that :)
Would that be controversial? My apologies for not wanting to read and understand the entire debate.
-- Tim Starling
Hoi, It is quite relevant that the orthography is an IANA and not an ISO-code. In the request for the code there is no solution as there are two codes needed to be able to distinguish on the code level the different orthographies. They only requested a code for the "tarask" vairiety and not the standard one. Furthermore in the correspondence associated with it, they do not accept that "be" is implicitly the standard orthography.
Consequently, the project under be-x-old can have internally the codes be-tarask, this allows for the proper tagging of the data itself. I do not agree to a name change of the project. The best thing would be when both projects get of their ideological / politcal high horse and collaborate.
Thanks, GerardM
On 5/11/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Alexander Cajcyc wrote:
Hoi
Recently the Belarusian "Classical" [as it is called by its users] orthography got its ISO-code, that is be-tarask:
I would make the minor technical point that this is not a code assigned by ISO, it is an RFC 4646 language subtag, assigned by IANA.
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem
with
that :)
Would that be controversial? My apologies for not wanting to read and understand the entire debate.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi!
It is quite relevant that the orthography is an IANA and not an ISO-code
ROTFL I just defined this a "formality" :))))))))))))))))) I knew it, my optimism is always wrong :)))))))))))))))))
Anyway, the rest remains.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, It is quite relevant that the orthography is an IANA and not an ISO-code. In the request for the code there is no solution as there are two codes needed to be able to distinguish on the code level the different orthographies. They only requested a code for the "tarask" vairiety and not the standard one. Furthermore in the correspondence associated with it, they do not accept that "be" is implicitly the standard orthography.
Consequently, the project under be-x-old can have internally the codes be-tarask, this allows for the proper tagging of the data itself. I do not agree to a name change of the project. The best thing would be when both projects get of their ideological / politcal high horse and collaborate.
I've renamed the language files and set the language code be-tarask. The subdomain is still be-x-old.
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem
with that :)
No. you miss three steps:
- we check that your code is a legal ISO 639-3 code (I'll do that myself)
- your linguistic entity is deviant enough from the normative version to be
granted more than just an alternative interface (many of you claimed it to be "like en_us vs en_uk", remember? Well, we don't have an en_us.wiki). 3) your community starts to behave as wmf a community (unity, no hatred, co-operation, etc).
None of these steps are required before changing the language code in MediaWiki, as I have done. Localisations in MediaWiki are identified by RFC 4646 tags, and no significant difference between variants is required.
-- Tim Starling
Hoi!
None of these steps are required before changing the language code in MediaWiki, as I have done. Localisations in MediaWiki are identified by RFC 4646 tags, and no significant difference between variants is required.
Yes, as said before :) Language files are quite automatic :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hoi!
DISCLAIMER: this is not an official LangCom statement. It is but my personal POV.
It really is, use it only if you care for some practical advice. If not... than why are you answering to my emails? BTW, when I say that "we need something" you can use that as a public personal pre-vote statement from my side. I'll really start the bluntest opposition EVER if you can't conform to those basic requirements and I have no problems in declaring it.
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem with that :)
No. you miss three steps: 1) we check that your code is a legal ISO 639-3 code (I'll do that myself) 2) your linguistic entity is deviant enough from the normative version to be granted more than just an alternative interface (many of you claimed it to be "like en_us vs en_uk", remember? Well, we don't have an en_us.wiki). 3) your community starts to behave as wmf a community (unity, no hatred, co-operation, etc).
Point 1) seems quite a formality. Point 2) is complicated, we will see what to decide about it and we will need material to be presented and approved by BOTH communities together (we are not going to accept a biased vision, it either suits you BOTH or it doesn't suit us, either).
If you are to request a disjoint Byelorussian edition you MUST prove that love and peace are reigning among the two editions. Let's be VERY clear: unless you prove this all you get from an ISO code is your language file in the official wikimedia distro. That part is due and automatic; I can warrant you that you'll have it as soon as LangCom verifies point 1).
If you want to have be-tarask.wiki start by defining a 50-50 commission made by your people and their people whose task will be in proving to us LangCom bastards why you are both better off alone. It will help MUCH if you include in your proposition a definition of how you are going to negotiate conflicts (we kind of can't believe they will magically vanish by simply giving you a code, you know) and what you can do to exchange contents and help each other (you are both small projects and need all the labor you can save/get/reuse, we just refused "classical greek" because it was taking away much needed arms from an already weak gr.wiki, so...).
It's time to work TOGETHER if you care for your projects. Too bad when I look at the follow-up of this discussion I seem to understand that all you guys need is to sink each other... well, it's none of my problems, after all. Have it as you please.
BTW ask Microsoft why their programs won't accept any other version of the national adjective. I write it just as you do, then the automagic corrector changes it back to "Microsoft politically correct" (i.e. Byelorussian). I'm on XP-pro, my mail uses the Word corrector distributed on the Russian speaking market, I guess you have the same in Belarus'.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Nobody is requesting a separate Wikipedia. Maybe you've been living in a cave, but that Wiki already exists. They're just requesting that it be moved.
Mark
On 11/05/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi!
DISCLAIMER: this is not an official LangCom statement. It is but my personal POV.
It really is, use it only if you care for some practical advice. If not... than why are you answering to my emails? BTW, when I say that "we need something" you can use that as a public personal pre-vote statement from my side. I'll really start the bluntest opposition EVER if you can't conform to those basic requirements and I have no problems in declaring it.
So it would be worth rename be-x-old to be-tarask and close the problem with that :)
No. you miss three steps:
- we check that your code is a legal ISO 639-3 code (I'll do that myself)
- your linguistic entity is deviant enough from the normative version to be
granted more than just an alternative interface (many of you claimed it to be "like en_us vs en_uk", remember? Well, we don't have an en_us.wiki). 3) your community starts to behave as wmf a community (unity, no hatred, co-operation, etc).
Point 1) seems quite a formality. Point 2) is complicated, we will see what to decide about it and we will need material to be presented and approved by BOTH communities together (we are not going to accept a biased vision, it either suits you BOTH or it doesn't suit us, either).
If you are to request a disjoint Byelorussian edition you MUST prove that love and peace are reigning among the two editions. Let's be VERY clear: unless you prove this all you get from an ISO code is your language file in the official wikimedia distro. That part is due and automatic; I can warrant you that you'll have it as soon as LangCom verifies point 1).
If you want to have be-tarask.wiki start by defining a 50-50 commission made by your people and their people whose task will be in proving to us LangCom bastards why you are both better off alone. It will help MUCH if you include in your proposition a definition of how you are going to negotiate conflicts (we kind of can't believe they will magically vanish by simply giving you a code, you know) and what you can do to exchange contents and help each other (you are both small projects and need all the labor you can save/get/reuse, we just refused "classical greek" because it was taking away much needed arms from an already weak gr.wiki, so...).
It's time to work TOGETHER if you care for your projects. Too bad when I look at the follow-up of this discussion I seem to understand that all you guys need is to sink each other... well, it's none of my problems, after all. Have it as you please.
BTW ask Microsoft why their programs won't accept any other version of the national adjective. I write it just as you do, then the automagic corrector changes it back to "Microsoft politically correct" (i.e. Byelorussian). I'm on XP-pro, my mail uses the Word corrector distributed on the Russian speaking market, I guess you have the same in Belarus'.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Oh, we were missing you :) I gather your health is better, is it?
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:21 AM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] be-tarask ISO-code
Nobody is requesting a separate Wikipedia. Maybe you've been living in a cave, but that Wiki already exists. They're just requesting that it be moved.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org